Thelema Bill, On 07/03/07, Bill Heidrick wrote: Bill All magick is old in essence, ... Jake yes, principles are fairly constant,Message 1 of 107 , Mar 7, 2007View SourceThelema Bill,
On 07/03/07, Bill Heidrick <heidrick@...> wrote:
Bill> >> All magick is old in essence,
Jake> >yes, principles are fairly constant, forms are variable. Most folks
> >get lost in the forms, whereas a grasp of principle enables new forms,
> >even new traditions.
Bill'> New forms, new traditions, but new ideas? Not many. Crowley's seemed
> be the "formulae of the words". It certainly wasn't the notion of the
> Aeons -- that belongs to Joachim of Flora as much as anybody.
Regarding Aeons, that takes us way off this track, but a quick tangent may
not hurt: AL *never* mentions ACs Aeon system (Isis, Osiris, Horus). Indeed,
when it does say Aeons - which it mentions only once - it may not be what
Crowley meant at all.
For all we know from the context 'accursed unto the aeons' might just as
easily mean 'accursed unto the Archons' (devilish personifications of the
Gnostic aeons, which were emanations and/or, planetary energies etc.) rather
than 'accursed for multiples of 2000 years'). Indeed, since the very next
word is 'hell' this interpretation is more likely rather than less. I'll
leave interpreting Crowley to the OTO, if it ain't in AL it requires
justification by other means before it matters to me.
AL and indeed Thelema may not involve 'new' ideas to any great degree, but
most certainly involve new emphases. Perhaps to a Kabbalist with their
linear and static hierarchy it is easy to say 'these ideas aren't new' when
the arrangement and emphases most certainly are. ;-)
To an initiated astrologer - who is used to a flexible hierarchy where there
is no permanent top, bottom or intermediate position for any one sphere,
since all are mobile - the change of emphasis may be more apparent, and
> >But the key to the biblical dungeon doesn't fit the lock we're
> >considering, or even resemble the key that does.
> I'm not convinced of that.
nor do you need to be for others to find what they want elsewhere than
As said, there may be different keys, and it depends what door you're trying
to open. I for one don't require a qabalah from AL that applies to anything
much besides AL (and - to a lesser degree possibly, if at all, the other
Holy Books of Thelema, and ritual uses). What it admits me and others to
need only be appropriate to those it concerns.
As it happens the Greek, Hebrew, Latin and other systems do interest me.
That needn't necessarily involve them in exegesis of AL, it may merely mean
I have historical interests, and can talk to you and others about them. ;-)
> >>An answer without a question is a
> >> dubious thing; and we may return to the Echidna, if we would mid-wife a
> >> question for it.
> >oh there is a question, and the answer takes us onwards, not backwards.
> Only if we first go back and catch the question.
so there is one? make your mind up! ;-)
Respectfully and affectionately as I can Bill, on occasion your portentous
language in this conversation don't strike me as Zen koans or educated
objections, more a smokescreen after the fact.
Order and Value --
> Ordinal and Cardinal. It's too general, as is. There are fundamental
> differences in thought, based on language. The "Romance" languages,
> derived from Latin in sentence structure, lead to a different way of the
> mind than that from languages like English. The English sentence has an
> actor, a verb and an object acted upon. The Latin sentence is like a play:
> Introduce subject and object, modify them as though in costumes and only
> then, when the stage is set, call the action. Such a difference in casting
> a simple sentence is reflected in the mind of the native speaker, in the
> ways of thinking. What is there in that Latinate set of letters, adopted
> by English, that reflects English?
You might as easily ask what is there in the Hebrew language that reflects
proto-Canaanite or Phoenician? Which might have been one of the questions
Sheba asked Solomon 'what's so hot about your 'Kabbalah' we've been doing
that for years?' ;-) And please don't bother pointing out that the real
historical Kabbalah came later than Solomon! ;-)
She might also have asked, with considerable justiification from her
perspective, 'why change the woman into a window and the serpent into a
All these millenia later some don't question the Hebrew systems validity to
us but say 'oh it's tradition, we haven't got one of our own, theirs will
have to do'.
But we needn't necessarily be dependent on the past, and the fact it is old
is not an absolute and immutable justification for preferring it.
All traditions start somewhere - and all the old ones were once novelties.
Otherwise, the injunction would be to
> find the order and value of the Neo-Latin Alphabet, not the English
> Alphabet. Gematria doesn't provide a solution to this issue, since any
> arrangement of number to letter will always produce a plethora of
> correspondences. The trick needs to go deeper.
A chariot involves leatherwork, woodwork, bronzework, not to mention
horsebreeding &c. While you - like modern car drivers - might refer to it as
'wheels' in reality there is much more involved. Which is not to say that
the art of the wheelwright alone is unsophisticated, whatever folks may not
know of it.
So similarly, EQ (there, I've mentioned it by name) involves more than
gematria, Which is not to say that the art of gematria alone is
unsophisticated whatever the limitations in some folks appreciation of it...
But it is no odds to the chariot rider that folks imagine otherwise.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
93 all, In a message dated 10/4/2007 4:14:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time, ... 93 93/93 Camlion ************************************** See what s new atMessage 107 of 107 , Oct 4, 2007View Source93 all,
In a message dated 10/4/2007 4:14:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> The Sight and Quatraining turned on a Nu Light in Hrumachis &made Bleary &:::lol::: Quatrain? Where have I heard that word before? ;)
> Dreary Cloud somewhat blue, because Glad was with Sad instead of Dreary, and
> Bleary wanted to be with Glad too.
See what's new at
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]